Reflections on a Russian Conference Report

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2017/russian-conference-st-petersburg/

In some ways this was a rather disappointing read.

I can only say that I've experienced a great deal of disappointment in the writings and opinions of Roberts. I think he has a poor grasp of the issues he addresses as well as the tradition he purports to represent. And while he and others seek to protect the Russian Reformed community from errors they are in fact doing damage themselves. They misrepresent Historical Theology, the nature of doctrine and the teaching of Scripture.

I continue to find it interesting that in many cases American Presbyterianism can do little more than produce Baptists abroad. The converts are not buying into their weak and watered down forms of Confessionalism. In reality men like Roberts are all but Baptists. They may apply water to infants but in their system of doctrine it has little meaning.

My purpose here is not to offend Baptists but rather I refer to a complex of thought-patterns and philosophical commitments that I believe are all but inherent in many Western forms of thought that tend to lead well meaning Bible-minded Christians to forms and categories of Baptistic thought. It's all but inevitable unless the nature of our interaction with the Scriptures, how we view them, submit to them, form hermeneutics and understand doctrine is completely reconsidered. While many believe they are basing their reading of Scripture from the teachings of the Apostle Paul they are instead reading them through the eyes of Scottish Common Sense Realism.

When I hear Roberts' and those like him express their paltry grasp and elaboration of Scriptural concepts this reality always comes to mind.

It pains me that they are inculcating these modes of thought and epistemology into the minds and hearts of people in other lands. These people have often come of age in a matrix of traditionalism and anti-modernity. They see Western 'success' and flourishing in terms of 'turning away' from these old modes of thinking. They are also trying to break away from the mysticism which dominates Eastern Orthodoxy.

How shocked they would be to discover that in turning to these Ecclesiastical proponents of 19^th century Rationalism they are in fact embracing nascent forms of Modernist thought. Roberts and other would of course deny this but this is at the heart of where they go wrong. They think they loathe Modernity but in fact they are deeply committed to its precepts. A century and a half after the rise of Higher Criticism and more than two centuries after many Protestants embraced Unitarianism, the Confessionalists still largely to fail to understand what happened and why. Their commitments set them back on that course over and over again.

I was also slightly disappointed in Thomas' reading choice. While the Holdomor is indeed terrible and a worthwhile topic of exploration, one must understand Anne Applebaum has an agenda. She's connected to US Establishment interests and is an academic and journalist connected to and deeply invested in the anti-Russia campaign. She's been revisiting Soviet and Cold War history and is quite eager to make every Putin connection possible. She was just on NPR the other day plugging the very book that Thomas chose to read.

Does she get the facts wrong? From my perspective she does a pretty good job reporting the story and has a solid grasp of the material. It's the interpretation and application that become problematic. It's also a question of ignoring the other side, the realities of Western and US machinations vis-à-vis the USSR and Russia.

Of course at this point in time Putin increasingly represents a threat to Evangelicals. Again, I'm not a fan of the new Tsar but I also grow weary of the Neo-McCarthyite propaganda campaign, the revisionism and the misrepresentation of post-Cold War history.

I would hope that churchmen would have a little more discernment but all too often I have found their proclivities tend toward Right-wing factions within the state.

Despite many current perceptions US conservatives have been profoundly anti-Moscow and led the charge for Russia's complete dismantling and subjugation in the wake of 1991. The DNC is fully on board with this project and due to their own political struggles they have escalated the calls for US aggression vis-à-vis Putin's Russia.

There have been some Libertarians, Paleo-Conservatives and Populists that have resisted the Russian narrative as well as some on the Left. For various reasons they are not buying the official narrative... the narrative endorsed and heavily propagated by people like Applebaum.

And yet since the overwhelming media campaign began in 2014 (and was then escalated in 2016) some of these 'resisters' are beginning to peel off and embrace the Anti-Russian narrative.

Vladimir Putin is an evil man. It's safe to say that label is true and applicable when it comes to every Russian leader and yet equally so when it comes to the leadership of the United States and pretty much the bulk of Western Europe. While maybe some European leaders aren't quite on the same level as Putin, few can compete with those that sit atop the US political system.

So what was the point in this somewhat fragmented piece?

I guess I was a little disappointed to read about these Western ecclesiastical efforts in Russia and then to know what a Reformed pastor chose as his historical fare... frustrated me.

When perusing the various ministries and interactions between Church leaders in Eastern Europe and the leaders and editors of US 'ministries' publications I find myself more than a little vexed. They always seem either sanitized or it seems like some of the Eastern European churchmen have just completely sold out to the West. It's hard not to be cynical.

In some cases I wonder if some of these leaders have fallen in love with the West and yet have not quite understood what it is? I always find it interesting that so many dissidents... even sports figures....will come here for various reasons and yet are disenchanted. They don't want to stay, they don't want to raise their children here.

I suppose in the end we all focus on certain things that are important to us. I can certainly understand that if someone wanted their money to be secure, if they want clear title to property, if they want to build a business, then yes, the West is probably a preferable place.

If not, or rather if these things are not all that important, then there are some other very solid reasons for wanting to live in a place like Romania or Russia. As a Christian very focused on the New Testament I don't share the concerns of many Christians in love with Western Liberal Society.

That said, I wouldn't want to live in Russia right now either. It's becoming a problematic place for faithful Christians. Despite that I am sceptical of Applebaum's motives and the casting of Russia as the source of most of the world's evil. It is that but again it is dwarfed by the magnitude of theft, murder and deception flowing from Western centres of power. Those that play by the rules of the system have the potential to flourish... maybe.

But those that don't find themselves on the outside and they're able to see the ugly side of Western 'Liberalism'.

I firmly believe and continue to argue that faithful Christians cannot play by the rules of the system and thus it follows that they will not flourish in it. There are some exceptions but I am largely very sceptical of Christians who are thriving members of the Western middle class. They've lost something along the way.

And in losing something they will fall prey to the propaganda. They will listen to the voices like Applebaum and accept her assumptions, her values, her prejudices, her praise of the West and... dare I say it, her implied violence.